Believing is Knowing

Knowledge is the building block of Judaism. Love of God is contingent on what one knows about Him.
ועל פי הדעה--על פי האהבה--אם מעט מעט, ואם הרבה הרבה
I am planning to post from time to time some of the ideas that I develop as I read and think about issues that catch my attention. Usually they relate to Machshava or Halacha especially how they affect our daily life. I am looking forward to learn from all commenters.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Over Rosh Hashanah I read an excellent paper in the current
issue of JQR (Volume 3 number 3 Summer 2013) by Professor Don Seeman which
opened for me a whole new avenue of thought and was very much at the forefront
of my thinking during Yom Kippur (which by the way is my favorite day of the
year). Rambam’s Ta’amei Hamitzvot, the last section of the Moreh, which
comprises more than half of part 3, has raised the hackles of thinkers since it
was published in the 12th century. Ramban attacks it several times
in his commentary on Chumash; the most famous attack is the one against
Rambam’s explanation of Korbanot (animal offerings in the temple). The biggest
criticism is that they seem very utilitarian and as the Rav writes in his
Halachik Man as quoted by Seeman, the reasons of the guide “neither edify nor
inspire the religious consciousness” and are “valueless for the religious
interests we have most at heart”. Many
attempts have been made at dealing with this but Seeman shows how the criticism
is a misreading of the Rambam and that Ta’amei Hamitzvot are indeed in line
with his general philosophy of Judaism, an intense religious idea. What is
really extraordinary is that Seeman proves this textually through a comment of
the Rambam in MN and its connection to Sefer Hamitzvot,

“By this injunction we are commanded to love God that is to say to dwell
upon and contemplate his commandments, his injunctions and his works so that we
can obtain a conception of Him and in conceiving Him attain absolute joy. This
constitutes the love of God and is obligatory.”

God is unknowable as He is a transcendental entity and
unique. He is beyond the realm of human comprehension. However man can see
God’s traces by contemplating his surroundings, the world he lives in, the
universe it is part of, how they came into existence, in short God’s works. But
what does Rambam mean when he says that we can obtain a conception of God by
contemplating and dwelling on His injunctions and commandments? Students of
Rambam have understood it to mean that by studying the Laws of the Torah in
great detail and devotion one is indeed studying God’s words and thus reading
the mind of God. That has been the classical explanation and to me it was
always discordant. It sounded like sophistry. And as Seeman points out,
commandment 11 deals with the mitzvah of Talmud torah, which is clearly
learning the details of the Law, why duplicate it? Furthermore in 11 there is
no mention of Talmud torah bringing about a conception of God.

Here is where Seeman’s great insight sheds light connecting
this commandment 3 with what seem almost an offhand Rambam comment and a
digression in MN 3:49. Rambam is discussing the reason for the commandments and
injunctions the Laws that deal with forbidden relations. As he discusses the
laws of Yibum (levirate) he seems to digress and talk about the story of Yehuda
and Tamar, how Yehuda was honest and just, and how the story teaches the
descendants of Yaakov about how their forefathers dealt with others justly.
Rambam then shows how equitable justice plays an important role in the Laws of
the Torah.

“Thus are these bad habits cured when they are treated
according to the divine Law; the ways of equity are never lost sight of; they
are obvious and discernible in every precept of the Law by those who consider
it well. See how, according to the Law, the slanderer of his wife, who only
intended to withhold from her what he is bound to give her, is treated in the
same manner as a thief who has stolen the property of his neighbor; and the
false witness (Deut. xix. 16, seq.) who schemes to injure, although the injury
was in reality not inflicted, is punished like those who have actually caused
injury and wrong, viz., like the thief and the slanderer. The three kinds of
sinners are tried and judged by one and the same law. Marvel exceedingly at
the wisdom of His commandments, may He be exalted, just as you should marvel at
the wisdom manifested in the things He has made. Scripture says: "The
Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are judgment" (Deut. xxxii. 4.
It says that just as the things made by Him are consummately perfect so are His
commandments consummately just. However our mind is too limited to
comprehend the perfection of all His works, or the equity of all His laws;
and as we are able to comprehend some of His wonderful works in the organs of
living beings and the motions of the spheres, so we understand also the equity
of some of His laws; that which is unknown to us of both of them is far
more than that which is known to us. I will now return to the theme of the
present chapter.”

Besides knowing the Laws in detail, which is the mitzvah of
Talmud torah, Rambam suggests that one should step back and contemplate the
Laws in their entirety how perfect and just they are. By placing this
contemplation together with contemplation of the universe, Rambam is telling us
that both contemplations have the same purpose and result. Just as contemplating the elegance of the
universe points us to God so too the justice and equity of His Laws point us to
Him. MN here is thus an expansion of what he said in Sefer Hamitzvot, a kind of
Gemara to a Mishnah. Seeman explains that now we understand how the chapters
about Ta’amei Hamitzvot are sandwiched between the chapters that talk about
Providence and the last chapters which talk about devotional worship. It is the
Ta’amei Hamitzvot that when the Mitzvot are contemplated from their perspective
lead to that devotional worship. It also explains the seemingly mundane reasons
for the commandments, it is the contemplation of these reasons that lead us to
be aware through the Mitzvot God’s wisdom in promulgating these Laws and we
gain a conception of Him. It is the latter idea that I would like to expand a
little upon and that has been central to my thinking in the short time since I
read the article.

The Law changes the individual and society by inculcating
good habits and beliefs thus changing the way people act with each other,
individuals as well as nations, by being more equitable and just. These habits
and beliefs indeed changed the course of human history. Judaism has influenced
the trajectory of western civilization and by extension the rest of humanity.
Contemplating how these Laws started at Sinai with Moshe Rabbeinu, have changed
the course of human history, one apprehends the wisdom of God the Giver of
these Laws, and we develop a conception of His Being. So when Rambam defines the third commandment
to love God as contemplating His commandments and his works, he is talking
about this type of contemplation not the details of the Law. When Rambam
explains that Korbanot are a concession to human frailty, he is telling us that
they are there to help us in the process of abandoning idolatry, the bane of
humanity, the great barrier to scientific understanding of the universe. (See
my article in Hakirah on the subject here

) When justice is done equitably society
is impacted and consequently the trajectory of that society is affected as are those
impacted by that society. Sometimes the Law be not work for an individual, but
the Law is still valid because it is good for the great majority of people and
impacts society favorably (see MN 3:34). This contemplation is the underlying
purpose of the need to know the Ta’amei Hamitzvot. This idea also dovetails
with Rambam’s concept of providence – Hashgacha as I explained Providence in my
article here. All actions have consequences and if one calibrates his action to
conform with God’s will and plan, one is acting within the parameters of
providence otherwise ones actions are purely chance. The Mitzvot have propelled
mankind along the path of divine Providence. Contemplation of that confirms and
illuminates how one understands God’s will and wisdom, pointing to His
existence and a conception of how He acts.

Professor Seeman has contributed greatly with his article to
a better understanding of the thinking of the Great Eagle and has completely answered
all criticism of his Ta’amei Hamitzvot. Understanding the Ta’amei Hamitzvot in
this context has made what seemed a mundane and historical explanation of many
Mitzvot into an intense religious experience.

This short post does not do justice to Professor Seeman’s
article which should be read in its entirety, but it triggered some thoughts
which I wanted to put down on paper.

(See also Ibn Ezra on Tehillim 19:8 and Redak on the same verse
who probably got it from Ibn Ezra which could be read in a similar vein.)

“The reward of the souls in the world of the spirits is referred to by
the Rabbis as “Gan Eden”, at times they refer to it as “going up” or “sitting
in elevation”. After this period [Gan Eden], the mashiach will come – he being
part of this world and at the end of that period will be the Day of Judgment
and the Revival of the Dead, a reward that encompasses both the physical and
the spiritual. That is the important matter that all that yearn for HKBH, yearn
for it, the Olam Haba, where the physical becomes spiritual, the soul cleaving
in the higher knowledge just as it did in Gan Eden in the spirit world, elevating
to a High apprehension and everything will become eternal”. (Translation is
a little difficult and loses the flavor of the original)

Ramban based on his reading of various sources in Chazal understands that
once a person dies his soul an immanent entity that has a ghostlike substance,
enters either Gehinom- hell or Gan Eden – paradise – for a transitional period
until Techyat Hametim – the revival of the dead. In between Mashiach comes and
physical life continues for a while with structural and societal changes which
I will not go into here until towards the end of that period, when the dead
come back to eternal life and the physical becomes cleaved with the spiritual.
That is Olam Haba where the physical body is sustained by its spiritual
component. In the schema the order of things after one dies are; Gan Eden,
Mashiach, Techyat Hametim and Olam Haba.

Ramban’s source for this thinking is the Ra’avad in Hilchot Teshuvah 8:2.
Rambam is discussing Olam Haba and explains that there is no physical existence
in that state. To Rambam Olam Haba is what one experiences immediately after
death and is permanent. Mashiach and the revival of the dead have no connection
with this and are separate future occurrences. In Rambam’s order Olam Haba is first
as it comes immediately after death followed by Yemot Hamashiach and eventually
some kind of Techyat Hametim for some elite.

Ra’avad comments quoting various Talmudic statements that, according to him,
unequivocally show the rabbis believed that the participant in Olam Haba does
have a physical body. As to the Rabbis statement that in Olam Haba there is no
food etc… he suggests that the bodies that come back from the dead are as
strong as those of Eliyahu the prophet turned angel … Ramban in Sha’ar Hagemul
does not quote him but clearly expands on it and explains more details.

In Daat 74-75 I was reading an article by Dr. Aviram Ravitzky about a
manuscript of a book titled Mezukak Shiv’atayim authored by Rabbi Joseph ben
Shaul Kimhi, a 14th century scholar in Provence. As anyone who read Bein Torah Lachochma by Professor
Moshe Halbertal, especially towards the end, knows that the Maimonidean controversies
in Provence during the late 13th and early 14th century created
a rift between those scholars and the Spanish scholars of the Ramban and his
followers the Rashba etc… school. The
rabbis of Spain rarely quote the Provencal rabbis in their works and as the
Jewish community was destroyed in Provence at the end of the century, their
works fell into oblivion. It is only now that slowly scholars are discovering a
few manuscripts in national libraries and are starting to decipher them and
bring them back to the world. A revival of the dead indeed! Mezukak Shiv’atayim
is one of those books. It is an encyclopedic work that includes Halacha and
theology. Aviram Ravitzky quotes a short excerpt which caught my attention and
addresses the above matter.

“And I the student wonder at the Ra’avad comment for this is not Olam Haba
but Techyat Hametim for Olam Haba is after death. That is why the Members of
the Great Gathering (Anshei Knesset Hagedola) wrote in the yotzer of Shabbat:
Olam Haze, Olam Haba, Mashiach and Techyat Hametim in that precise order….”

Rav Yosef is referring to the Shabbat Yotzer Or Bracha at the morning Shema
and Tefillah “Hakol Yoducha”. At the end we say Ein aroch lecha baolam hazeh,
ve’ein Zulatecha lechayei Olam Haba, efes biltecha leyemot hamashiach vein dome
lecha litchyat Hametim. The order is clearly not the Ra’avad order but rather
Rambam’s.

What also caught my eye is that Rabbi Yosef traces the Hakol Yoducha prayer
to the Anshei Knesset Hagedola. We know that it does not exist in Rambam’s
siddur at the end of Sefer Ahavah. I have also checked Siddur Resag and it does
not have it either. I cannot imagine that a Minhag in place from the Anshei
Knesset Hagedola would be ignored by these Rishonim.

Saturday, August 10, 2013

Shabbat, I came across by chance on an interesting Teshuvat
haRashba (1:423) that opened an interesting train of thought and explained a
difficult concept in Rambam. It is a lengthy Teshuvah that deals with certain
aspects of Davening. Towards the end Rashba comments as follows: (my translation)

“Regarding prayers where you stated that without Kavannah
(mindfulness) it has no meaning for a worshiper the truth is that mindfulness
is the basis for everything. However the kind of mindfulness (in other words
what one thinks about) vary and are divided into different levels, one deeper
than the other, depending on the depth of the knowledge and apprehension of the worshiper from the simplest person to Moshe rabbeinu AH, according to each one’s
apprehension [the prayer] will satisfy.

The first level of Kavanot upon which all Jews rely upon, is
that all know and admit that there is a God, a non-contingent entity that
created the world from nothingness with His will as He wished to do so, that He
gave the Torah at Sinai, a true Torah with just laws and edicts. It is to Him we
belong and worship, He commanded us to offer ourselves as we declare His name [teach
His existence DG]. It is Him we thank, to Him we pray, for everything emanates
from Him and He watches our deeds to punish or reward. It is with this Kavannah
that all Jews pray even women and ignoramuses and are rewarded for their
worship. Even those who don’t understand the words, does not pronounce them
well, are rewarded for their worship when having this general Kavannah…. One
should not stop one who cannot attain the higher levels of Kavannah from
praying God forbid nor should one demoralize them. For if you suggest this then
children, women and ignoramuses would not be able to pray or do Mitzvot, not
only them but the majority of the Jews except for one or two individuals [who
have a higher apprehension] and the Rabbis already told us all Jews have a part
in Olan Haba.”

What caught my attention are the last few sentences in this
part of the Teshuvah. Rashba argues that it cannot be that higher levels of
apprehension are necessary because the Mishnah in Sanhedrin says that Kol
Israel yesh Lahem Chelek Leolam Haba. In other words, once a Jew does the
Mitzvot while subscribing to the basic theology outlined above, he partakes in Olam Haba. The rest of the Mishnah then reads “and
these [people] do not partake in Olam Haba, one who denies Techyat Hametim,
denies the divinity of the torah etc…” The Mishnah is thus telling us that one that
keeps Mitzvot but has an erroneous theology as defined further does not partake
in Olam Haba. The act of the Mitzvah does not suffice unless it is done with a
basic mindfulness that an erroneous theology does not permit.

I believe that Rambam read this Mishnah the same way. Some
scholars have argued that the way Rambam explains the ultimate goal of Mitzvot,
which is to make us into perfect individuals who apprehend God and that
achievement is Olam Haba, a kind of unification of the mind with knowledge of
God, then unless one is perfected one cannot have Olam Haba. They therefore
wonder how Rambam would deal with the Mishnah that suggests that ALL Jews have
Olam Haba. The basic theology that Rashba has outlined allows for an apprehension
of God that already gives the person a glimpse of Olam Haba albeit of a lower
level. A person doing a Mitzvah with that apprehension partakes in Olam Haba.

Thursday, July 04, 2013

In the 10th Perek of Sanhedrin (11th in our
Mishnayot and Gemarot), Perek Chelek , Mishnah 3 there is an argument between
Rabbi Nehemiah and others whether the Dor Hamabul, those who drowned in the
flood for being a depraved generation, are eventually going to be judged even
though they do not merit Olam Haba. Rambam in his commentary notes that “we
have mentioned several times that all arguments amongst the sages that has no
practical application whatsoever and which simply establish an opinion there is
no place to say that the Halacha is according to one of them”. Rambam
repeats this in his writings several more times. In the context of this Mishnah it appears that
he personally agrees with Rabbi Nehemiah and understands him to say that there
is no post death reward or punishment for the wicked of the caliber of the Dor
Hamabul or the inhabitants of Sodom. They
simply cease to exist while the righteous do have Olam Haba which is the
ultimate reward which of course he also tells us at the end of Hilchot Teshuvah
that no one really knows what that entails. This is further strengthened by his
comment earlier on the first Mishnah regarding Gan Eden and Gehinom where he
implies that they are something physical in this world. I understand him to say
that Gan Eden is on earth where with time humanity will eventually develop it
to produce life enhancing and extending products while Gehinom is either
external or internal torture that prevails for the wicked during their lifetime.
He is quite cryptic though and does not make it easy to know what he is getting
at. But again notwithstanding his extensive treatment of metaphysics in his
writings, it is exactly in this Mishnah where he sets down the rule about not
being able to rule according to one of the opinions of the Rabbis on matters of
theology without practical implications. Quite telling!

Ramban in his Sha’ar Hagemul, the theological section of his
Torat HaAdam, his compendium on the laws of mourning has a lengthy discussion rejecting
how Rambam understands Olam Haba and in general what happens after death basing
his position on statements of chazal and Midrashim which he reads literally. He
addresses Rambam’s statement about Gehinom and feels compelled to forcefully
read Rambam’s statement as one who also believes in Gehinom as an after death
punishment for the wicked. As you read him carefully you can discern between
the lines that he really did not believe Rambam was saying what he tries to
force into him but he felt he had to do this because he could not accept Rambam
would hold such a heretical position from his point of view.

I believe there is a fundamental difference between Rambam and Ramban’s
understanding of metaphysics. Rambam holds that metaphysical understanding is a
human endeavor. As a person perfects himself by developing his knowledge of the
world while at the same time improving his personal traits controlling his
urges and putting them under the domination of his intellectual faculty, he
begins to find answer to the existential questions that go beyond the physical
and the knowable. His intuition and imaginary faculties are triggered under the
influence of his rational faculty. These answers are not certainties but a good
attempt at finding the truth. Rambam describes this very poignantly in his
introduction to MN.

“Do not imagine that these most difficult problems can be thoroughly
understood by any one of us. This is not the case. At times the truth shines so
brilliantly that we perceive it as clear as day. Our nature and habit then draw
a veil over our perception, and we return to a darkness almost as dense as
before. We are like those who, though beholding frequent flashes of lightning,
still find themselves in the thickest darkness of the night. On some the
lightning flashes in rapid succession, and they seem to be in continuous light,
and their night is as clear as the day. This was the degree of prophetic
excellence attained by (Moses) the greatest of prophets, to whom God said,
"But as for thee, stand thou here by Me" (Deut. v. 31), and of whom
it is written "the skin of his face shone," etc. (Exod. xxxiv. 29).
[Some perceive the prophetic flash at long intervals; this is the degree of
most prophets.] By others only once during the whole night is a flash of
lightning perceived. This is the case with those of whom we are informed,
"They prophesied, and did not prophesy again" (Num. xi. 25). There
are some to whom the flashes of lightning appear with varying intervals; others
are in the condition of men, whose darkness is illumined not by lightning, but by
some kind of crystal or similar stone, or other substances that possess the
property of shining during the night; and to them even this small amount of
light is not continuous, but now it shines and now it vanishes, as if it were
"the flame of the rotating sword."”

After reading this we can very well understand why there
cannot be a definite ruling in these matters. In fact we cannot even convey to
each other the whole understanding one is able to achieve because it is
personal and individual. That is why Rambam in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 2:12 based
on the Gemara in the second Perek of Chagigah describes the transmission of
metaphysical truths as

We can transmit to another only the “headings of chapters”,
a kind of conceptual summary, but ultimately the understanding is personal and
individual.

Ramban on the other hand makes it clear in all his writings
that the metaphysics he knows is one that was transmitted from mouth to ear
through the generations. These matters are secrets that only the few can
understand but there is a definite set of information that one must adhere to
and it is knowable. It is not based on human knowledge but is something that it
is received from God by Moshe at Sinai and transmitted to us. He is so sure
that this is all transmissions that he cannot accept even that the rabbis would
argue about these matters and he ends the Sha’ar Hagemul saying:

There cannot be any doubt in these matters because these are mystical
truths received at Sinai.

The implications of these two opposing positions carry far.
According to Ramban Torah and Mitzvot are part of the mystical system that
maintains the world, not only the human world we know but the whole universe.
Rambam sees Torah and Mitzvot as tools to develop ourselves in a way that we
can speculate about metaphysics without personal bias, so that we can come as
close to the truth as a human being can. However not one human being has
achieved total knowledge, not even Moshe Rabbeinu. These two approaches impact
how each of these two great Rishonim understand prophecy. Rambam sees it as a
result of human perfection; it is the ultimate badge of a perfected human
being. An imperfect person cannot prophesize. Ramban does not have a problem
with prophecy of an ignoramus if God so wishes. (See however Ramban on Bamidbar
22:23 and 24 where he seems to waiver a little).

Personally I find Rambam’s approach inspiring and uplifting.
It puts a much bigger onus on the individual demanding perfection but to me it
has a ring of truth and is compatible with the human condition as we know it.
Ramban’s approach does not speak to me and I find it depressing. But that is
me. Others love the idea of Kabbalah and mysticism and it gives them strength. As Rambam says we do not passken in these
matters that have no practical outcome.

Sunday, June 02, 2013

As I learned Ramban on Sefer Vaykra, it was revealing the
way he develops his understanding of Hashgacha and in general his view of the
world. He already laid the foundations for his thought in the first two books,
Breishit and Shemot but here he applies it to the committed Jew in his day to
day practice, namely the Mitzvot. Again we can observe the undertones of a
dialog where Ramban addresses Rambam’s understanding almost at every turn
though he only does so overtly on occasion. While to Rambam Mitzvot are tools
for self-improvement to Ramban they are intrinsically important for the
functioning of the universe – they have a deep mystical impact on the well being
of the universe and its population.

6 And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down,
and none shall make you afraid; and I will cause evil beasts to cease out of
the land, neither shall the sword go through your land.

He discusses the meaning of וְהִשְׁבַּתִּי חַיָּה רָעָה, מִן-הָאָרֶץ – I will cause
evil beasts to cease from the land. Moshe Rabbeinu is telling the people that
if they follow God’s commandments he will bring peace to the land and eliminate
wild beasts from it. He refers to a discussion of the subject in Torat Kohanim
(Behukotai 2:1) between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Yehuda says I will remove them. Rabbi Shimon says I will restrain
them so that don’t harm. Argued Rabbi Shimon, what would enhance God more, when
they disappear or when they are here but don’t harm? So too it says: A song for
the day of Shabbat, to the One who restrains the harmers, restrains them from
harming. (This is a play on the word
Shabbat which also means refraining / restraining – God refrained from creation
on the Shabbat)….

Ramban comments that rabbi Yehuda understands the sentence literally
(Kepshuto!) that as the land prospers with plentiful food and health; its
cities will become populated. Wild animals do not frequent populated areas,
confining themselves to the forests and thus creating a safe environment. But
Rabbi Shimon holds that it is a miraculous event. If we follow the Mitzvot even
the wild animals that roam amongst us will not harm us. Ramban explains that the
land will return to its original state before the sin of Adam where no animal
killed humans or each other. Before Adam’s sin all animals were vegetarian as
they had no permission to kill or eat living things. Once man sinned and
animals were allowed to attack humans, they developed a taste for meat and now
started devouring each other too. He reads the verses in Yeshayahu 11:6-8 quoted
in the Midrash literally; a child will stick his hand into a snake pit and be
unscathed; lions will be vegetarian. In
the days of Mashiach, all animals will return to their original pre-sin state
and lose their appetite for meat. Ramban comments that Rabbi Shimon’s position
is the correct one.

Here again Ramban is arguing with Rambam and in passing
shows us some interesting insights into his thinking. First here is Rambam’s
comment on the verses on Yeshayahu: (Hilchot Melachim 12:1)

Of course Ramban cannot agree with this for to him Yemot
Hamashiach are going to be miraculous times; nothing will be as it is now. But
again we see how he dialogs with Rambam all the time even when he does not
mention his name. The fascinating thing is that he ties his own disagreement
with Rambam into an ancient argument amongst the Tanaim. That in fact
legitimizes Rambam’s position. Unlike some of his contemporaries who attacked
Rambam vociferously to the point of burning his writings, Ramban makes sure we
know that they both have legitimate positions supported by the rabbis of the
Mishnah. What also caught my attention is how he explains the changeover of
carnivores from vegetarians in a natural way. Once man became available to the
beasts they developed taste for meat! Nothing changed except a more evolved
palate! He in fact, many times in his commentary, reaffirms that miracles have
to have a reason and a purpose, generally to make people aware that there is a
divine presence in the world. But that is a subject for another post.

Friday, April 05, 2013

As one learns Ramban on Chumash it becomes clear that as he
declared in his introduction, he is having a dialogue with his predecessors. He
discloses in that introduction the names of two of them: Rashi and Ibn Ezra.
But a person familiar with Rambam’s thought will detect a constant underlying
dialogue with Rambam especially when the subject deals with theological matters
even when he does not explicitly tell us so. An example of such a subtle
dialogue can be detected in this week’s Parsha (Shemini) Vaykra 9:7-8.

And Moses said unto Aaron: 'Draw near unto the altar, and
offer thy sin-offering, and thy burnt-offering, and make atonement for thyself,
and for the people; and present the offering of the people, and make atonement
for them; as the LORD commanded.'

So Aaron drew near unto the altar, and
slew the calf of the sin-offering, which was for himself.

The obvious question that comes to mind is what was the purpose of this
dialogue? Didn’t Aharon know that it was his job as Cohen to go up to the altar
to do the Avodah? Chazal detect reluctance on his part and comment on it. Rashi
abbreviates their comment and just points out that Aharon was shy and
reluctant. One gets the impression that it was possibly a lack of
self-confidence or humility, Aharon feeling that he was not worthy. Ramban is not content with leaving that
impression. After offering a somewhat strained Peshuto Shel Mikra explanation
he quotes the Midrash (Mechilta DeMiluim 7, Sifra ad locum) verbatim.

“But in Torat Kohanim [our Rabbis]
commented on this matter by offering a parable. This is comparable to a king
who married a woman who was ashamed [to be intimate] with him. She came to her
sister who told her – isn’t it for this purpose that you married him? Be bold
and come serve the king. So too Moshe told Aharon, brother weren’t you chosen
to be Cohen Gadol to serve God? Be bold and do your work. Some say, that to
Aharon the altar took the shape of an ox (Ketavnit Shor) and Aharon feared him,
Moshe came to him and told him not to let his fears take over, be bold and go
closer. That is why it says קְרַב אֶל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ and וַיִּקְרַב אַהֲרֹן, אֶל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ;”

When one reads that Midrash second explanation one can interpret it that
Aharon was feeling guilty about having been instrumental in the Egel episode. A
more sophisticated read, and probably that is how Rambam would read it, is that
he was trying to understand how is the concept of bringing offerings to an idol
different than burnt offerings on the altar in the Mishkan. Why when he created
the Egel which was ultimately directed to God, he was so harshly censured,
isn’t this similar? Isn’t the idea of
bringing an offering a sort of bribe exchanging it for goodwill? Aren’t we
attempting to bribe God here too? Moshe’s response was that despite the
questions he must do as ordered because it is God’s wish to allow the people to
indulge a little in their superstitious illusion and thereby slowly lead them
to a more advanced understanding of worship. This is a very directed and regulated
worship while the Egel was an unregulated spontaneous outburst of superstition
and even worse, to an intermediary, a representation of God.

Ramban however, at the beginning of Vaykra (1:9) has already voiced his
vehement disagreement with Rambam’s understanding that Korbanot are a
concession to human frailty. He does believe that offerings impact God if
brought with the proper intention. The Egel was to an intermediary which is
prohibited while Korbanot are directed to the Hallowed Name of Hashem. He now
worries that this Midrash will be interpreted support Rambam’s position.

“The meaning of this Midrash is because Aharon who was a holy person and
only had sinned once at the Egel, that sin stood out in his mind, … and he saw
the form of the calf, namely that it was preventing him from successfully
getting forgiveness. Moshe tells him not
worry as he is already forgiven for that misstep. Others say that the Satan was
showing him the calf, as the Rabbis say there, Aharon my brother, even though
God forgave you, you still have to offer something to the Satan to stop him
from interfering when you come into the Holy places…”

Ramban interprets the Midrash as saying that Aharon was worried about his
having sinned and that will stand in the way of his worship. He makes that point
lest we interpret that the Korbanot themselves were problematic. Ramban does
not see a problem with offerings as long as they are directed to God. The second
explanation offered by the Rabbis he interprets as the Satan appearing to
Aharon demanding a bribe for himself. There are circumstances where even the Torah
sanctions bringing offerings other than to God. Satan at times may have to be
placated just like the Azazel offering on Yom Kippur see Ramban and Ibn Ezra on
Vayikra 16:8.

Rambam in MN 3:46 explains that the Azazel offering does not imply that one
can transfer one’s sins onto another entity (reminds us of Kaparot and I would
not be surprised that was in his mind as the custom goes back to Geonim) but
rather to symbolically awaken in us the thought that we have left our past
behind and we are starting afresh with the undertaking of not repeating past
mistakes. This offering represents the most abhorrent sins of the whole people
which are so bad that they cannot be bought into the sanctuary in front of God.
I also believe that at the end of the whole charged Avodah of the holiest day
of the year, Yom Kippur, the last offering does not come onto the altar as a
symbol that the burning is not what a Korban is. God does not need it and to
Him it is all the same whether offered to him as a burnt offering or whether it
is gratuitously destroyed. It is all to get us thinking about our actions and
improving them. We have here a classic redirection of a habit that cannot be stopped.

Thursday, November 01, 2012

In the previous post I explained that Rambam sees the God of
Judaism as an entity that we know exists but is so outside any category that we
know that even the words “God exists” has no meaning in our understanding of
“existence”. It just means that there “is” such an entity and that we
hopelessly cannot ever even conceptualize His essence. The question is then
what relevance does such an entity have to us? How can we relate to Him? What
does worship, prophecy and knowledge mean as it relates to God? How do we ever
propose to connect with Him? Paradoxically, the Halacha does demand of us that
we get to know God, that we worship Him and that we love Him. How are we
supposed to love an unknowable and incomprehensible entity? Rambam in Sefer
Hamitzvot establishes that the first Mitzvah is to know God and he restates it
in the short count at the beginning of Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah–

How are we supposed to know the unknowable? And to
complicate matters further we are required to love Him too –

ב) שלא יעלה במחשבה שיש שם אלוה זולתי ה'; (ג) לייחדו;
(ד) לאוהבו

How can we to do that? Hassidim report that this question
was posed to Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the first Lubavitcher Rebbe and
Ba’al Hatanya by the child grandson of Rabbi Dovber of Mezritch. He asked;
after having said the first verse of Shema where we declare the ultimate
uniqueness and thus transcendence and unknowability of God by saying ה' אלוהינו, ה' אחד,
how can we immediately proceed and say

ואהבת, את ה' אלוהיך, בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך, ובכל
מאודך

This question is addressed by the Ba’al Hatanya in his
Sha’ar Hayichud Veha’emunah where he deals with the issue in great depth. A
discussion of this great essay is beyond the scope of this post; the question
however is very important and I will attempt to address it as I understand it.

Although we were taught by Moshe rabbeinu that God can only
be known in the negative, what He is not, we still needed Avraham Avinu’s
question to arrive at that by understanding what caused existence and who or
what is behind it. If the answer to that question is that there must be an
entity responsible for existence, it leads to the next one - what is the
essence of that entity that is behind that existence? Rambam in MN 1:54 puts it
as follows:

“THE wisest man, our Teacher Moses, asked two things of
God, and received a reply respecting both. The one thing he asked was that God
should let him know His true essence: the other, which in fact he asked
first, that God should let him know His attributes. In answer to both
these petitions God promised that He would let him know all His attributes, and
that these were nothing but His actions. He also told him that His true essence
could not be perceived, and pointed out a method by which he could obtain the
utmost knowledge of God possible for man to acquire. The knowledge obtained by
Moses has not been possessed by any human being before him or after him.”

Rambam describes Moshe’s thinking process. He begins with
the question triggered by existence which we see as God’s actions – “His
attributes, and that these were nothing but His actions” – or to put it in
a simpler context – we know that there is an entity we call God because something
or someone must be responsible for existence[1].
In this process, the path to God is through contemplating His actions which is existence.
As we contemplate God’s actions we also develop a sense of how the world we
live in is being run by Him. We are amazed by the complexity and at the same
time the simplicity of the whole system, how each part is necessary for the
existence of the whole, our environment how everything is interdependent and
how finely tuned all the components of our universe are. As we are filled with
wonder, we are humbled by our insignificance in the scheme of things and at the
same time we want to get to know better this entity that is responsible for all
this.

What is the path to love and fear Him? As a person contemplates His wondrous actions
and His great creations, seeing in them Hisimmeasurable andunending
wisdom, at once he is filled with love, praising and lauding [Him] as he is
filled with a great longing to get to know the great name as David said “my
soul thirsts for God – the living God”. When one contemplates these matters he at once
steps back as he is filled with fear and dread realizing that he is an
insignificant small creature, low and somber, who stands with minimal intellect
in front of the perfect intellect as David said “when I see your heavens …. What
is humankind that you should notice it”?

Rambam depicts contradictory feelings that the seeker
confronts. On the one hand there is a great urge and need to get to know God
and to express one’s love for Him and at the same time he is humbled as he realizes how insignificant and
unimportant he is in the scheme of things and he is overcome with trepidation
and wants to step back. The urge to love
gets translated into action as the person now wants to emulate the beloved by
contemplating the beloved’s actions. He wants to partake in those actions and
play a role in them. The humbling feeling on the other hand fills him with
uncertainty and doubt, forcing him to question his understanding of God and His
actions - עומד בדעת קלה מעוטה לפני תמים דעות. This constant
tension between wanting to know and to emulate God and the deep knowledge that
this is an impossible task, the uncertainty that this fosters is the impetus
for self-improvement. It is only by striving for perfection that one can feel a
little comfort in this attempt to emulate God. It also fills one with humility forcing
the person to question his decisions on how to act, making sure that he is
really trying to emulate God and not just act out of personal biases and
natural inclinations. I always find it upsetting when people act with certainty
criticizing and condemning others, stepping all over them and bulldozing through
them as if they had all the answers. We never have all the answers and we never
will; we just are trying our best to know how to act correctly and that does
not give us the right to judge or step on others.

We started by asking what is the relevance of searching for the unknowable
God and the relevance of this knowledge to our daily life. The answer is that
the search is a goal in itself. It is through the search that one becomes
acutely aware of our environment and how it works giving us a basis rooted in
reality, not an imaginary mystical “spiritual” concept, for emulating that
perfect entity responsible for existence. The urge to find God and the humbling
knowledge of the impossibility of the task, the unknowability of God, see to it
that our emulating Him is judicious and well thought out, done with the proper
caution and realness.

[1] I
have to emphasize that it does not mean there must be a Creator but rather an
entity that is not contingent and that has a hierarchal precedence to all
existence (see my article in Hakirah).

Wednesday, October 03, 2012

In his book “Why Does the World Exist?”(Which I highly
recommend to all those who think about existential issues), Jim Holt interviews
a series of philosophers, physicists and writers. He poses to them the question
“why is there a world rather than nothing at all?” and reports their
answers. The answers can be divided into
three camps listed by the author as; “optimists” who hold that there has
to be a reason for the world to exist; the “pessimists” who believe there
might be a reason for the world to exist but we will never know for
sure; the “rejectionists” who believe there cannot be a reason
for the world to exist and the question itself is meaningless. The fact that thinkers in each group grapple
with the question, while even the rejectionists work hard to explain why the
question is meaningless, proves that the question is important and begs for an
answer. With the Big Bang, the currently
accepted theory of how the world began, the question is; what triggered the singular
event? How did the Big Bang come about? The answers given by the different
interviewees vary from, it just happened; to it was started by some quantum
induced or other possible scientifically explained event; to God as the Creator
being behind the event. Each of these answers leaves us with a mystery as the
question still remains; who made God, who or what established the scientific
law that triggered the event or what was behind the “just happened” event. The
book’s point is that the question still begs for a definite answer and will continue
to do so for a long time if not forever.

As this solid individual (Avraham Avinu) matured, while still a youth, his
mind began to wander and think day and night pondering; how is it possible for
this sphere to always circle without it having a driver? Who is making it
circle? After all it cannot do so by itself. He had no teacher or someone who
could inform him for he was ensconced in Ur of the Chaldeans amongst the stupid
idol worshipers.

Rambam presents the question in context of the Aristotelian physics of his
time putting it into Avraham Avinu’s mouth. The movement of the spheres was
seen as the force that made earthly existence possible; the movement caused the
elements to mix together creating the endless combinations of matter that make
up the world. The outer sphere, הגלגל הזה, causes all the other spheres to move. The question is what is
behind that moving force just as contemporary thinkers ask what is behind the
Big Bang. That question has not changed with our more advanced understanding of
how things work and there is no outlook that it will change with further
advances in our understanding of our environment and universe. The answer that
Avraham arrives at according to Rambam is

As his mind
wanders and contemplates, he arrives at the true path, and thanks to his
straight thinking he develops the correct line of thought; he knows that there
is out there one God who directs the sphere, who created all and no other God
exists besides Him.

Avraham’s God is
the Creator and His existence is a deduction that Avraham arrives at through
questioning the provenance of the natural environment he lived in. He deduces
that there is a Creator, a unique God that is also the continuous force that is
responsible for all physical existence. The exact definition of “unique” had
not yet been developed completely and therefore he had not answered the
ultimate question; how did God himself come into being? That question remained
even with Avraham’s understanding of God’s uniqueness. It is only when Moshe
comes onto the scene that the question is finally answered with his
introduction of a more advanced concept of God that addresses the question.

“For all men, with few exceptions, were ignorant of the existence of
God; their highest thoughts did not extend beyond the heavenly sphere, its
forms or its influences. They could not yet emancipate themselves from
sensation, and had not yet attained to any intellectual perfection. Then God
taught Moses how to teach them, and how to establish amongst them the belief in
the existence of Himself, namely, by saying Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, a name derived
from the verb hayah in the sense of "existing," for the verb hayah
denotes "to be," and in Hebrew no difference is made between the
verbs "to be" and "to exist."…This is, therefore, the
expression of the idea that God exists, but not in the ordinary sense of the
term; or, in other words, He is "the existing Being which is the existing
Being," that is to say, the Being whose existence is absolute. The proof
which he was to give consisted in demonstrating that there is a Being of
absolute existence, that has never been and never will be without existence.” (MN 1:63)

Moshe introduces the concept of negative knowledge when dealing with God’s
existence leaving us with the only possible expression, “the existent Being
which is the existent Being”. When we say that God exists we mean that His
existence is absolute. He does not exist in the way we understand and use the word
existence which is qualitative. Existence is not a quality of God but His
essence meaning that God by definition cannot NOT exist. This concept cannot be
grasped by the human mind because our senses attach existence to things. In our
experience all things we know are brought into existence by another thing, by
an event or another type of cause. We live in a world of cause and effect and
that is what we can understand. The only way we can get a sense of God’s
existence is by understanding that whatever we understand existence to be it
does not apply to God just as the concept of cause and effect does not apply
either. The great understanding of Moshe Rabbeinu was that any concept of God
we arrive at, that concept cannot be God. God is inconceivable; He is the Great
Mystery and also the ultimate Truth. (For a fuller treatment of Rambam’s
understanding see my article in Hakirah.) This concept was taught
to us as a nation at Sinai where the Torah continuously repeats that God
appeared in darkness and clouds on the one hand and fire and sound on the other,
a metaphor for this tension between knowing that there is an Entity responsible
for existence while at the same time, that Entity is unknowable to the point
that even “existence” is equivocal when used in this context. It is only once
this new concept of God has been accepted that we can move to the next step and
say that this Existent is the Creator. We are thus saying that there is a
singular incomprehensible Entity which we call God, an Entity that has a
singular existence that is responsible for all that exists.

This understanding of God makes the question “who created God?”
incomprehensible. Time, space and therefore location have no meaning when thinking
about such an “existent”. He “is” but not in the sense we understand “is” to
be. Creation is needed for the common existent who therefore has to have been
caused but the kind of “existent” we think of when talking about God is not in
the same category. To summarize; we sense that there must be something out
there that is responsible for this existence but this something is completely
incomprehensible to us to the point we cannot even imagine anything about His
essence nor ask questions about His existence which cannot be what “existence”
is to us. The closer a person can come to internalizing these opposing ideas,
the closer he is to God. At Moshe’s first encounter with God (Shemot 3:6) he immediately
hid his face and refrained from looking. He had internalized that God is
incomprehensible. The Rabbis tell us metaphorically (TB Brachot 7a) that as a
reward for this it is said about Moshe (Bamidbar 12:8) that he saw God’s image.
In other words the true apprehension of God is the “not” apprehension, the deep
acceptance that whatever one thinks is God, it is not. No wonder Moshe was the
humblest of men. (See Rav Adin
Steinsaltz edition of Sha’ar Hayichud Veha’emunah of the Ba’al Hatanya page 98
in his wonderful comments).

This is how Judaism according to Rambam explains existence and how it came
to be caused by the incomprehensible God. Had it stopped here we would have a
nice abstract explanation of an existential question. But Judaism goes a step further. This Entity
that we sense its "existence" and is responsible for ours whom we find
incomprehensible, can however be traced via that same existence. Our own
existence results from His existence. We are therefore one of the results of
His “actions” and so is everything that surrounds us. By looking at all that
objectively and very carefully we can develop a sense of where He wants to take
this whole enterprise namely existence. That is the focus Judaism puts on this
speculation and redirects it to the practical; how do we emulate God’s actions?
In next post(s) I will attempt to address this and how it affects our question “why
does the world exist?”

“One who worships out of love, is occupied with Torah and
walks in the paths of knowledge, for no other reason in the world, neither for
fear of bad consequences nor hoping for good outcomes, but acts the truth
because it is true and eventually good will follow on the whole[1]”.
(Hilchot Teshuvah 10:2)

This is one of the most important statements that we can
find anywhere in the Jewish literature and it truly defines our religion as it
really is – The Quest for Truth - the ultimate Truth. What triggered this post is
a quote from Steven Weinberg (Nobel Prize Physicist), in Jim Holt’s excellent
book – Why Does the World Exist? – which I am now reading. Weinberg reportedly
stated, “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things
and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that
takes religion”. My reaction is that he
is 100% right and that is because most people do not understand what real
religion is all about. I don’t know enough about other religions but I know
enough about our religion, Judaism to know that based on the way it is
practiced nowadays and understood by the general Jewish religious community,
Weinberg is correct. It is only by accepting Rambam’s definition of religion
and understanding deeply what he is teaching that Judaism can become what it is
supposed to be – to move humanity towards seeking Truth and not a tool for
control and manipulation.

The general rather simplistic and popular concept of Judaism
today is that it is good for you. God knows all and watches all human actions
and sits in judgment; good deeds are rewarded and bad deeds are punished. As
man does not know what is right or wrong, a set of laws has been given – the
Torah and Mitzvot – and doing good means following the Mitzvot, bad is ignoring
or flouting them. Punishment is when bad things happen and reward is when good
things happen. How to define good things and bad things? If a person’s wishes
are fulfilled it is good and if they are thwarted it is bad. As human life is
short there is an additional bonus, Olam Haba, life after death where if one
was good one will bask in perpetual bliss, an undefined concept but said to be
something that one cannot grasp while alive. The evil person, the one who
flouted the Mitzvot while alive will burn in hell, suffering untold pain
eternally. Then there are full panoplies of intermediary systems where one gets
reward in this world for the good deeds so that he can be punished eternally
for the bad and vice versa. Interestingly
some more “advanced thinkers” will suggest that there are “spiritual” benefits
that result from following this path. If you try to delve deeper and ask what
they mean by "spiritual" the answer is less anxiety, Bitachon,
feeling good about yourself and other such “feel good” experiences. The common
denominator is that the rewards are “good things” happening to the individual. All one has to do is pick up a contemporary
Mussar sefer or “theological” sefer to get a picture of this simple and easy to
grasp system of reward and punishment. The ultimate goal of this type of
religion is to adhere strictly to the Mitzvot and to reap the rewards that God
bestows on those that follow rituals strictly.

At first blush, the sources fit very nicely with this
understanding of Judaism. However this approach cannot satisfy a thinking
person. It is a narcissistic and selfish perspective on life where everything
one does is to satisfy personal wishes and needs. It is no better than
capitalism, socialism or any other “ism” out there. Egoism and selfishness
eventually lead to evil and it is in the name of these “isms” that much of the
evil witnessed by humankind has been perpetrated. If there is nothing more to
religion, then religion is truly the cause of evil. If religion is there only
to better our material life then it will inevitably lead to evil. That is the
idea behind Avodah Zara – idolatry - which is the ultimate falsehood and is the
underlying theme of all that the Torah teaches away from. So how do we explain
the prevalence of this way of thinking in our community? Human beings are
endowed with the urge for self-preservation. That urge is common to all living
things and is there to perpetuate themselves and their kind or genus. That urge is narcissistic and selfish and is
part of us just like appetite and all our other urges. This type of religious
thinking caters to that urge and is attractive to the animalistic instinct, it
“feels” good. It is also a misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the sources,
a distortion of what they teach us as we will see further.

In addition to the survival instinct human beings have
another innate capability - consciousness. That capability allows us to see
ourselves, ourselves in relation to the other and in relation to our environment
and our universe. It gives us the ability to see beyond our natural urges and
our immediate needs, to see the other and develop moral and ethical codes that
take into account the other and our environment. Moral and ethical societies do
not necessarily require religion to function and indeed many societies work
well without religion. Thus the first part of Weinberg’s statement is correct,
good people will do good and bad people evil without religion. Consciousness
and the ability to think abstractly and self-awareness that comes with it bring
with them an even more advanced and sophisticated urge; it triggers in us the
need to understand our existence why we are here, what is the goal of us being
here and all the existential questions that humanity has struggled with for
millennia. Judaism is meant to help people address these questions. Rambam
counts as the eighth positive commandment

המצווה השמינית

הציווי שנצטווינו להדמות לו
ית' כפי יכלתנו, והוא אמרו:

"והלכת בדרכיו" (דברים
כח, ט).

The existential question of how and why we exist and the
search for the answer has a practical side to it – to find God so that we can
emulate Him. The problem is that to know God, to know how to emulate Him is not
easy. God is the Truth but also the Great Mystery and the search to discover
Him and interpret His actions correctly is a lifelong task that takes over all
aspects of a human being’s day. The greatest challenge is to overcome
subjectivity, self-serving bias so that we can see things objectively. It is
here that Torah and Mitzvot, the practical side of Judaism come into play. They
are the tool that perfects our minds and our emotions so that we think
objectively and thus know how to act constructively. Torah and Mitzvot are not
the goal and end all of religious life but the most important gift we received
from HKBH as tools to perfect us and help us reach our ultimate goal which is
finding God and His ways and emulating Him. When religion is focused to help us
realize these goals it is a very personal experience and does not lead to
control and manipulation that is the source of evil. On the contrary it imbues
us with respect to fellow seekers and compels us to enlist others into this
quest through example and promotes love for our fellow human beings.

Returning to the question we asked earlier, why is our
community so invested in the idea of following the Law for the sake of physical
reward and to avoid punishment? The
question is even sharper when we read the strong admonishments and warnings in
the last few Parshyot – Ki Tavo and Nitzavim. They all seem to focus on the
physical good and bad. As I said earlier it is an attractive approach to the
undeveloped person and therefore entices him to grab on to this
misinterpretation of the sources. In Hilchot Teshuvah Chapter 9 Rambam
addresses these sources and explains how they are meant to be read.
As this is a quite lengthy discussion I will leave it for another post. Here is a summary of how Rambam understands
this –

It should be noted that at the end of all the admonishments
and warnings where the Torah describes all the physical destruction and
punishment that will result from our transgressions, the Torah describes what
will happen at the end when we realize our mistake. It promises improvements in
our physical wellbeing but ultimately the goal is – (Devarim 30:6)

6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart, and
the heart of your seed, to love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with
all your soul, that you may live.

The ultimate goal is to worship God out of love and not out
of fear. Love comes with knowledge. We love someone we know; we do not love
strangers. It is the search for the answers to our existential questions that
leads us to the transcendental God, the mysterious and unknown Entity that we
can only know through negating any physical attribute to, that we only perceive
the results of His will and which we try to emulate. The understanding that
this is the goal of Mitzvot and not just physical wellbeing will go a long way
to keep us from falling into the trap Professor Weinberg so eloquently describes
– “But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion”.

In another post I would like to expand more on this last
fundamental issue – what exactly to we mean when we talk about God? When we say
we are searching for God, what exactly are we looking for? Because the answer
to that sharpens further why Professor Weinstein’s comment and indeed many of
the anti-religion arguments of other atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens do
not talk to me when I think about real Judaism, the one Rambam teaches.

As this post was inspired by Steven Weinberg, who claims to
be an atheist, I would like to share another statement of his regarding the
boycotting of Israel by some humanistic/religious groups -

"Given the history of the attacks on Israel and the
oppressiveness and aggressiveness of other countries in the Middle East and
elsewhere, boycotting Israel indicated a moral blindness for which it is hard
to find any explanation other than anti-Semitism."

Spoken like a Jew!

I wish all a Ketiva Vechatima Tova and a Shana Tova. Chag
Sameach.

[1]
“On the whole” indicates the possibility of a rocky road with a good outcome.
The immediate result of “acting the Truth” may not be necessarily rosy but in
the larger context it will lead to good. This falls into Rambam’s discussion of
providence – Hashgacha.

Disclaimer

About Me

I am a businessman living in Brooklyn. I spent time at Slabodka in Bnei Brak and Beth Medrosh Elyon in Monsey during the Sixties. Altough I have to thank the Yeshivos for giving me the basic tools to learn and think, I have found that they have not prepared me to be a thoughtful and practicing Jew once I was confronted with reality. Most of my real learning and personal growth was attained on my own while being active in the real world.